Leave Bill Clinton alone. The poor guy. It must really hurt to have Gore and now Obama getting the prize and not him. It was just a blowjob. Don't they understand that in Europe at least? Or are they waiting for the day when they can give the prize to him and Hillary at the same time. And what about Hillary? Why must she too suffer, seeing Obama collect the prize — and overshadow her in foreign affairs — overshadow her by doing nothing. The indignity of it all!

I was just watching TLC and they had a commercial for next's weeks episode of Toddlers & Tiaras. Obama wins the Little Miss Chitlin'. I believe he is crowned Ultimate Grand Supreme as well as Divisional Most Beautiful, Divisional Most Photogenic, Divisional Best Dressed, and Divisional Outfit of Choice for the Chitlin' Strut.

The following week, Obama is going to win the Tiny Miss USA to be held in West Virginia.

Are you quite mad?Bush killed nearly 5000 american soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the Grand Misadventure of the Manifest Destiny of Judeoxian Democracy in MENA....to make an Islamic state....that is returning to steady state sectarian violence and oppression of minorities, women and homosexuals.

Le Duc Tho wasn't head of state of North Vietnam so he wouldn't qualify. Le Duc Tho also had the balls to decline the award on the basis that North Vietnam hadn't conquered the South yet (what he said was that there was still no peace in Vietnam).

I have an award for George W. Bush and Dick (and I do mean "DICK") Cheney:

Prosecution for war crimes and a healthy period of time in jail.

They lied and distorted us us into a no win situation that to this day in time, still rages on.

We've been in Afghanistan for 8 years and what has it gotten us?

More heroin, more dead soldiers, more dead civilians and a black mark on the reputation of America.

And Iraq will go right back to what it was before we went in, only this time the religious crazos will be running the show...and don't forget the dead and wounded Americans or the 100,000 dead and innocent Iraqi civilians.

Its fun watching the Europeans pretend that there is peace ever since Obama stopped the Anti-Missile Shield for Europe from Iran's missiles and Atom Bombs and told the Arabs that they could have a free shot at Israel as long as he is Peace-President that now makes peace by refusing to defend anyone by bad old war. The Neville Chamberlain Peace in our time has about 6 months left before WWIII erupts all over the world. Thanks a lot all you wise Europeans. What does a nuclear exchange do for the temperature of the air anyway?

You are making Obama's case here. Assuming a different end game. You have to figure the Germans are happy that the USA is playing nicer with the Russians. Here's hoping we don't see a non-aggression pact.

I love how liberals noted that Saddam's rule over Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people when Clinton was president and demanding we oust him, and when Bush does it, they note a much smaller number of deaths as though it's not proof Bush saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

That's outright hilarious.

This prize is very amusing. Obama did more for peace than the people rotting in prison in Iran and China? LOL. I don't think this will help the dems much with the 'unqualified carter-like neophyte euroweenie pleasing aristocrat' charge.

I hope they make a HUGE deal out of this prize. As Americans struggle for jobs, or die in Afghanistan, or worry about Iran's nukes... hey! Obama's pretending he's accomplished something! Job Well Done!

Well, start with the Americans who voted for Obama over Johnny and the Princess...being at "peace" with the belief that we have someone who knows what the fuck he's doing running the country, and appears to have regular American's concerns in mind.

The Republicans had the majority in Congress for 12 of the last 14 years and the White House for 8...what have THYE done for us lately?

John Lynch, I grant that it would be a direct contravention of Alfred Nobel's written will to award the prize to someone who raised an army and won liberty for people

But it was also a contravention to give the award for powerless Al Gore for his debunked hysteria. He didn't increase peace or reduce war. And really, has Obama?

Obama has talked about eliminating nukes and making peace, but he's got years yet before he could do so. Why not wait and give the award then? Even if he failed, it's not even clear if he will raise a surge into Afghanistan or not. He's bombing pakistan and ha kept our men in Iraq...

Of course, we know he's as eligible as Bush at this point. How hilarious for those who really have fought for freedom to see this prize issues as some kind of wise judgment about what the aristocracy has been paying attention to.

The aristocracy in Norway reads Vanity Fair... they do not actually care about peace. If you want to improve the world, you cannot care what they think of you. You have to be brave and willing to take on huge risks. those kinds of folks don't uninvite the Dalai Lama to make China save face.

Bush had that bravery to an extent, but there are better examples in prisons in Iran and China.

It might look like we haven't accomplished much, but things would have been far worse without it. Hey, that's the same as Obama's take on the stimulus. Which is the same as the Nobel committee's take on Obama.

Philadelphia has a Freedom Award. It is given each year and this year, it was awarded to Steven Spielberg. ???? IMO, the world has a severe shortgage of heroes when a movie director gets this type of award. But when Obama gets a Nobel prize just for being Obama, I guess these awards societies have decided to de-value the awards by bestowing on less than heroic winners.

"And Iraq will go right back to what it was before we went in, only this time the religious crazos will be running the show...and don't forget the dead and wounded Americans or the 100,000 dead and innocent Iraqi civilians."

Because every brown person or Muslim is a crazy fanatic and just animal who needs a dictator to keep them in line? Jeremy you are horrible racist. That statement shows that you really think of Arabs and Muslims as some kind of subhuman race incapable of ever succeeding or ever living in a peaceful society. Frankly, it is the kind of sentiment and comment that Althouse needs to delete.

People put up with a lot of your nonsense for entertainment value. But, I have a lot of Arab and Muslim friends. They are not sub humans. Every single one of them is smarter and more enlightened than you are. Saddam was a mass murderer who killed people on an industrial scale. Iraq is 1000 times better now than it was before the invasion. And despite what racist like you hope and pray for, Iraqis are a good people who are building a better country.

Some peace prize that turned out to be. Just run against Republicans and you're qualified!

Hey, Iraq has much more peace and freedom now. It was not a neat and simple thing... freeing those people was hard fought, ugly, dirty, and murky. But it was done. Please don't trash that accomplishment just because the only thing that matters in your life is hating a political party.

To some people, peace is about more than belonging to the right club or party. Not the hilarious aristocracy in Norway, but the real people... who all over the world agree that Obama is unqualified for this prize.

Real people are fighting for freedom... some are quite liberal, too. Why not give the prize to someone who isn't just a celebrity?

You have to understand that Jeremey is a racist. He can never admit that Iraq is anything but a horrible country because doing so would entail looking at Muslims as fully human. As a racist, he can't do that.

What's amusing is that the Iraqis clearly are NOT reverting back to what the democrats swore they would.

They are working hard for peace. They deserve this prize more.

Democrats have always said that Arabs are unable to appreciate peace. But they are Democrats. The party of Al Gore Sr and Bull Connor. They do not understand that all were created equal, and dream of liberty and individual freedom.

Iraq is proving those idiots wrong, but Obama has shown a tendency to interfere. America has had a responsibility since 1991 to help Iraq. Clinton failed and Obama probably will too. If there is an attempt for a tyrant to overthrow the democracy in Iraq, I know Obama will continue to support the tyrants and aristocrats, and that the tyrants and aristocrats will continue to support Obama.

No I'm not. Obama said Afghanistan was the good war. He beat Bush and McCain over the head with that, then repeated it when elected.

I didn't agree with him. I thought we should hit and run there. But let's face it, he'll say whatever is necessary at the time. Yes, he's a LIAR. Obama lied, people died. He's a killer. He's trying to figure out how to not fight a war he insisted was the good war, but do it ... gracefully. Meanwhile our soldiers, and plenty of civilians die.

Agreed on the point about Bush liberating Iraq, but Reagan liberating communist Europe? Come on. If anyone deserved the Nobel it would have been the eastern bloc dissidents that REALLY brought down communism: people like Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa. Gorbachev got it in 1990, and rightly so. After all, it was he, not Reagan that brought down the Soviet Union...

I am reading "Reagan's Secret War", which details efforts to reduce nuclear weapons and put increasing pressure on the Soviets (which led to a victory in the Cold War). Reagan was a strategic thinker and a wily negotiator. Miles beyond the toy president and Nobel Laureate we have now.

"Even if HALF the commenter's are Pro-Prize, that amount of comment from either "side" reveals an unusual amount of concern or awareness."

This is the most bizare news story not involve OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson in my lifetime. It is not surprising that there is a lot of comment on it. At this point, The Onion might as well close down, its stories are happening real life.

Lem, I suspect that is the case: that Obama knew he was going to win this prize and was waiting to decide on Afghanistan until it was a sure thing.

If that is the case, he should be convicted of treason, of course. Our men are dying over there. Obama should be leading them and fighting for them. He is the commander in chief of the largest army in human history, and the stated will of the nobel prize was to go towards those who reduce such armies.

Obama cannot logically be the Commander in Chief bringing our war to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as promised, and deserve the Nobel peace prize. It just isn't possible.

I think there's a reason these people keep timing their prizes in the way they have. Arafat, Gore, Carter, now Obama. I thought they flew the coop with Gore's prize, so I just laugh now. they will probably give him the prize again next year.

"If Iraq will go to hell after we leave, then why advocate an early withdrawal? It's like the blame is more important than the result."

That is a terrible accusation. You would almost think the Democrats would rather see the US lose than win. It is not like they cut off aide to South Vietnam and cheered on the North when it invaded or anything. Oh wait>>>

It's getting harder and harder for this conservative who doesn't hate Obama or believe that he is too far left to hold on to those beliefs in the face of such idiocy.

There are NO untainted Nobel Prizes, including Literature and the Sciences. They currently exist for the gratification of the egos and political statements of the leftist and somewhat fascist (several committee members actually happily accept that label) Nobel committee.

The current status and prestige value of any Nobel Prize of the last 50 years is about the same as an Emmy Award, and much less than a Golden Globe.

Chris...The Germans' ability to deal from strength with the Russians lasts only until we remove our in country military shield. Then the Russo-German treaties should once again swallow up...Poland...and France...and Italy...and the Balkans. Notice that the role of Americans will become inconsequential. So the Norwegians are tickled pink.

"The current status and prestige value of any Nobel Prize of the last 50 years is about the same as an Emmy Award, and much less than a Golden Globe."

I wouldn't go that far. I would say in the last 10 or 15 years. Milton Friedman, Richard Feynman and Alexander Solzneitzen all won a Nobel in the last 50 years but before 1980. After 1980 we started getting into Rigberta Menchu, Harold Pinter and Al Gore territory.

K-Tron...By your analysis the Emperor of Japan ended the war between the USMC and the Empire of Japan in 1945 by courageously surrenduring a few weeks before the nexr Fission Weapon exploded over his Sun God's head and turned him into the Solar Wind that he claimed to represent.

In the last 20 years they have given prizes to Arrafat for killing Jews, Menchu for an entirely faked biography, Al Gore for making a propeganda movie, and Paul Krugman for accomplishments in home economics. Given the recent trend, Obama getting the award is sad but not surprising.

I'm loving this. Anything that makes the right wing howl with indignation and hatred just makes me laugh a little more.

At the end of the day this prize has little or no meaning. It will be forgotten next week and we can get back to regular business: Passing a healthcare bill! [We will], Reviving the economy! [Will take time], Working toward peace! [Will take years].

There are NO untainted Nobel Prizes, including Literature and the Sciences.

So true and so sad. It's the corrupting influence of easy money up there. Don't think for a second that the Norwegians don't benefit from higher oil prices.

Just now I'm looking at an editorial in Science written by Nobel Laureate & Obamacrat Steven Chu. He begins: "Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have caused the climate to change, and a dramatic reduction of these emissions is essential to reduce the risk of future devastating effects."

Not a single word on curbing the emissions of developing nations, because you see, the present adminstration is all about unilateral economic suicide.

"At the end of the day this prize has little or no meaning. It will be forgotten next week and we can get back to regular business: Passing a healthcare bill! [We will], Reviving the economy! [Will take time], Working toward peace! [Will take years]."

Keep diging through that big pile of shit Matt. There is a pony in there somewhere. Unemployment will go down someday. And Obama has saved or created how many jobs? Around the same number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

A good portion of our society has gone insane or are just too stupid to know any better

Late in the thread, I suspect, but I cannot avoid the connection between Bill Clinton's Oval Orifice BJ and the remarkable Québec film, Invasions barbares by Denis Arcand.

In that masterpiece by the director of Déclin de l'empire américan there is a scene in Late Republic Rome. The power-hungry protagonist dies at the most intense moment of fellatio.

Of which his friends said -- and the subtitles are miserable here -- Il voulut être César, mais il ne fut que pompé. "He wanted to be Caesar, but was only Pompei." Except "pompé" means to have a blow job: pompé = pumped.

I wouldn't go that far. I would say in the last 10 or 15 years. Milton Friedman, Richard Feynman and Alexander Solzneitzen all won a Nobel in the last 50 years but before 1980.

So actually, you're willing to go back at least 30 years, John.

The fact that there are only 3 that readily comes to mind proves again what an anomaly they are.

What a waste of the earth population's time.

And I would still feel this way if Bush or Reagan won it - in fact, I truly don't believe for a minute that would really even care, aoart from giving a speech and making nice for a minute. They certainly wouldn't trumpet it in their memoirs or resumes. They were far smarter than the current Oval Office occupant in recognizing a Nobel Prize's worthless value.

I think too much credibility is given to a small panel of ideological jackasses appointed by a Leftist Norweigan Parliament.

That makes 3 awards in a row where a winner was named to "diss Bush II". Men of little or no accomplishment past blowhardiness.Jimmy CarterAlgoreThe One.

Problem is Americans are CONDITIONED by schools and media to REVERE whatever motley Peace Prize Laureate this jackass cabal makes....and unlike other Nobel awards that have truly objective criteria included in their procedures. Ooooooh some loud-mouth S African clergyman says we should all be nice and reconcile and sweep untidy things under the rug!! Lets give him a Peace Prize and call him a Great Man!

What I see is the Swedes have worked hard to maintain the lustre and integrity of the other awards and it is the only one - trusted to another country that has managed to discredit the one they were entrusted with awarding. The Swedes should yank it from Norway, take it over themselves, or give it to the Swiss Red Cross.

=================As for Presidents, worthies certainly wouldn't have included Dubya - who botched almost anything he touched in the long run. Nor a joke like Carter. And Reagan is very ovverated. He did help checkmate a dying Empire and maybe hastened it's demise by a few years..but have no doubt...we now know it was a dying Empire on the way out when Reagan took office..and it's weakness and rot were only masked by the veneer of Red Army armor and its missile forces..If two modern Presidents deserved a Nobel Peace Prize, I'd say Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon would head my list.

Eisenhower - Stabilized the Cold War, helped block a Hot War by making it unwinnable. Ended the Korean War. Stopped the Suez War.

Nixon:Detente, ABM treaty, SALT II with the Soviets.Peace and full diplomatic relations with China.Unilaterally ended US participation in chem warfare and paved the way to a global NPT in those weapons of mass destruction flouted by only a few nations.Ditto with ending the Biowar WMD problem.Stopped the 1973 ME War.Ended the Vietnam War.Began the concept of the all-volunteer military, ending the napoleonic model of "easy war through mass conscription".Sucessfully applied Realpolitik and blocked several critical clashes from becoming major wars (Turkey-Greece), (India-China), etc.Worked with European countries in reducing Communist inflence from it's high tide in 1968, rolled back communist influence and wars of liberation in Latin America, the ME, Africa.

===========And I'd add that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are deserving, and actually eligible, since they are both alive.

Aw Matt - it's easy to make believe that the value of an award actually means something when it goes to your political comrades. It's hard to see through the bush when you all are sucking the same dick.

"The fact that there are only 3 that readily comes to mind proves again what an anomaly they are."

There are more than three. Even post 1980. The hard science ones are good. The problem is that you quickly run out of prize worthy people. They would be better off if they only gave one every four years. It was easy to give prizes when there were Heisburgs and Paul Duracs running around who hadn't recieved them yet. But after a century of giving one every year.

The peace prize has always been somewhat of a joke. And the economics prize has had some worthy recpients but with the award of Paul Krugman it has become as bad as the peace prize. The literature was okay pre-1980 but now just rewards communists of color no one ever reads or in the last 8 years as a life time achievment award in Bush hating.

But Obama? I think this is going to make him a laughingstock like Carter. It's really done him no favors.

Meh. You can certainly make the argument Carter advanced the cause of peace while in office. It's not clear at all the Egyptians and Israelis would have buried the hatchet without Carter's involvement (and a whole lot of US taxpayer money).

But Obama hasn't done anything. I mean... anything. What were they thinking? I agree this is more of a political problem for the president than anything else, because it highlights his lack of achievement. There's no good answer to the "why?" question. On the other hand, if he turns it down it makes him look like an ingrate.

This is the latest in a long line of stupid awards by the committee. The peace prize doesn't have nearly the prestige it once had.

The jokes pretty much write themselves. Obama for the Heisman. Obama for World Series MVP. Obama wins the emmy for best actor in a dramatic series, etc...

They did him no favors. Only his derranged followers are happy. The rest of the world is either embarassed, preplexed or laughing. I love how the house liberals are claiming that this is making the "right nuts". The right is not angry, they are laughing and it is at not with Bambi.

Eric, it's hard to swallow your defense of Carter, but you're right... Carter fought for his views for decades before winning his prize. I admit, it's a farce because the prize committee called that prize a "Kick at Bush", so it's just a partisan trick.

but at least Carter worked for decades before getting the prize. Losing, but stubbornly pressing on for decades, is admirable. If you're a hopeless hippie, it makes some sense.

You're right that comparing that to Obama's less than two weeks in office at nomination really makes clear what that this prize is a new low.

The DNC is claiming we're "with the terrorists" such as the "taliban". Dissenting this ridiculous award is equal to murder, rape, religious oppression, etc. OK democrats. Your party is officially unamerican.

Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1--only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September--two months before Obama was elected president.

I agree both Eisenhower and Nixon deserved it more than most and certainly more than Obama.

Alternatively, many of their accomplishments amount to kicking the can down the road. Some, (Vietnam)resulted eventually in millions of deaths and substantial subjugation. Some of those cans (Korea) continue to be in the road today as millions continue to starve there with a looming need for resolution still on the horizon.

Real peace is more like what was accomplished in Japan, or Germany, but nobody will ever get a peace prize for bombing the hell out of a nation, even if a permanent peace is achieved and millions of future deaths are avoided.

Can kicking is the smart move, or sometimes the foolish one, but it is the only action awarded prizes and is done so regardless of long term outcome.

None of this is even close to how the prize is awarded today, which appears to be by a poll in Teen Beat magazine.

Well, start with the Americans who voted for Obama over Johnny and the Princess...being at "peace" with the belief that we have someone who knows what the fuck he's doing running the country, and appears to have regular American's concerns in mind.

The Republicans had the majority in Congress for 12 of the last 14 years and the White House for 8...what have THYE done for us lately?

They don't pay you to actually do this kind of craven bootlicking over at the DNC in public, do they?

Really, that post was disgusting it its obsequiousness towards a sitting President of any Administration. The man has only instituted policies that make Russian domination of Eastern Europe and Chinese domination of the Western Pacific more certain. At the same time, his domestic policies depend on the printing of vaporware fiat money that is backed by nothing but your full faith and credit.

I'll give you two cents towards what that's worth in Zimbabwe, at least while Mugabe's still alive.

Face facts: Ahmadhi-Nejad would have won the Nobel if this Peace Prize Committee had had its druthers. I'm surprised they didn't ask Cedarford for advice on whom to give it to. With a hearty "Juden Raus" to go with the award to Dinner Jacket!

I'm still burned up over the fact that Althouse didn't get the award, btw.

Garage, I realize the democrats have made the charge that the GOP stiffles dissent, but did that really happen?

What are thinking of? I can't think of any examples where the GOP said that the entire democratic party was in league with the Taliban for merely dissenting against Bush in an ancillary way. The DNC's statement today says that any attack on Obama at all is in league with "terrorists".

a) the democrats claimed this was absolutely abominable behavior. They are now doing this... only ridiculous more egregiously. They were projecting just as you are.

b) The republicans didn't do anything like this. At worst, they pointed to specific examples of betrayal and called them what they were. They never said that citizens were terrorists for denying some honor to Bush.

When the GOP said that rooting for the US Military to fail was unpatriotic, they had a point. Or bashing the war effort in foreign nations was letting politics go beyond the water's edge and unhelpful and wrong, they had an argument. When they said secretly meeting with foreign leaders to negotiate against the CinC for out of line, it made some sense.

The DNC is saying that any dissent against this prize... for the GOP to not agree to bestow a huge honor on Obama, is "terrorism". Yet the reality is the other way entirely: agreeing that Obama deserves this prize constitutes an irrational level of worship. He has not actually caused any 'peace'. This is supposedly a huge honor, and many of those Obama beat were real heroes. It's insane to say Obama deserved it the most, but the DNC is going so far as to say that disagreeing is TERRORISM.

Therefore, the DNC will outright deny your patriotism and call you a terrorist if you do not outright WORSHIP Obama.

You can snark all day, but that's what teh DNC stands for. Worship your leader or you are a traitor. You can't take those words back. No prize will take away the fact that democrats are the party of hate and corruption.

Ahmadhi-Nejad would have won the Nobel if this Peace Prize Committee had had its druthers.

I think he'll get it next year for participating in multilateral negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Granted, he is negotiating just to buy enough time to complete and deploy a nuclear arsenal, but his willingness to engage in peaceful diplomacy regardless of outcome will make him a contender next year.

Don't blame Obama for getting it. He did not solicit the award and his probable 1st reaction was "Ahhh, crap!".

The joke really should be on the Norweigans for devaluing the one Nobel they were entrusted with. And those that mindlessly "Revere!" such prizes when it is clear that the award for this or that is dramatically diminished by gamesmanship, politics, affirmative action.

Well at least we can take comfort in the fact that you're not saying Bush killed MILLIONS of Iraqis and citing the Lancet numbers. Small comfort, but whatever.At any rate, you are aware that Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan right.Have no people been killed under Obama's Afghanistan policies? I know he continued with the drone strikes that took out a bunch of Al Qaeda members but also a lot of innocent people as well. Do these not count or are they not innocent because Obama's military killed them?

You write:

We've been in Afghanistan for 8 years and what has it gotten us?

More heroin, more dead soldiers, more dead civilians and a black mark on the reputation of America.

This is in reference to the "good war" right? The one that Bush diverted from to go to Iraq, and the one that Obama and the entire democratic party spend the election hyping as the real threat? Since Obama actually sent more troops into this war zone isn't he culpable for this war? Or were the dems lying the whole time about the diversion from the real war on terror. We get it, to them there is no real war on terror. If we're in Afghanistan it's in Pakistan. If we go to Pakistan it's Afghanistan. You are simpy liars trying to get democrats elected and will say ANYTHING to do so.

Blaming Bush for the people the terrorists bombed in Iraq is a lot like blaming FDR for the holocaust. The monsters in Iraq were butchering people for generations. We're are fighting terrorists, and get blamed for the people the terrorists kill. As though they wouldn't have kept doing it if we had ignored them.

OK... Iraq and Iran killed millions of people in the 1980s. Iraq starved and ethnically cleansed half a million in the 90s. Terrorists killed 100,000 (probably not quite that many) during the Iraq war. I blame Bush!!!

Not that I would want Bush to get the peace prize. It's a noble goal to say 'No more wars'. I understand that ideal, and would love to see real heroes get the prize. Obama has increased the number of men with guns fighting wars, has bombed Pakistan, etc. He should be compared with Bush, not men of peace.

bagoh20 said... I agree both Eisenhower and Nixon deserved it more than most and certainly more than Obama.

Alternatively, many of their accomplishments amount to kicking the can down the road. Some, (Vietnam)resulted eventually in millions of deaths and substantial subjugation. Some of those cans (Korea) continue to be in the road today as millions continue to starve there with a looming need for resolution still on the horizon.

I'd argue that Eisenhower avoiding starting WWIII and settling for an Armistice that left S Korea free to develop 32 times the GNP of the NORKs over a 50 year time span was not "kicking the can down the road".

I'd argue that Nixon didn't kick the Vietnam can down the road. Far more successfully than the hapless Dubya managed, he Vietnamized that war...made the S Vietnamese take the casualties for defending their country...forced peace, got the POWs home, and left the S Vietnamese in a position to defend themselves.In the end, Vietnam fell because the S Vietnamese lacked the will and commitment of the N Vietnamese..then because the corrupted, dispirited cadres of the South were backstabbed by the Democrats on military supplies - no fault of Nixon because he was out of power by then.

And sometimes "bombers" do get Prizes. See Kissinger, Mandela, Arafat...and of course George Marshall, whose Marshall Plan was basically to rebuild part of what the military he headed blew up.

Why say Bush and Reagan are totally ineligible for making war for peace, when Arafat was allowed to murder women and children to terrorize people?

We all know that it's not some logical rule of honor that keeps Bush or Reagan from being recognized for their accomplishments... it's the fact that the nobel peace prize committee is on the other side of the wars those two waged. It's really pretty simple. Obama is on their side, and this is propaganda.

If President Barely was smart, what he would have or should have said to the Nobel Committee is "Thank you for this award, but I must say no to it because I haven't earned it. I intend to try, but I'm not deserving of a prize I haven't done anything yet to be awarded."

That would have been shut people like Limbaugh up, but nope, Leftists once again step in their own shit and muddy the waters with their ideological goo. Way to hamstring President. This tiny little committee that most people could give two shits about just effectively destroyed the man ability to govern properly. Afterall, everything he does now will be gauged against the prize.

I doubt that the parties involved would have gone for a world war III, but hey you never now, and I agree about S Korea's opportunity realized. But there is a North, and millions of those people north and south have suffered dearly for that "peace". We don't know what would have transpired, it could have gone with the U.S. winning that war if China was hit hard, which they could not afford at the time. That result would have left all of Korea looking like the south does today. This may have also reversed the expected outcome in Vietnam and cooled future communist support there. I'm no history expert, but I know there are worse outcomes than war, mainly long drawn out communist failure which inevitably murders millions peacefully within their own borders, while "peacemakers" collect awards safely on the other side of the globe.

I'm not faulting those leaders for their decisions, they may have been right, but it is not simple nor clear.

Maybe I'm just a neocon dreamer, but I also wonder if success in Iraq followed by similar result in Afghanistan leading to 2 independent democratic Islamic M.E. nations pursuing economic vitality never seen there before would "peacefully" prevent the Armageddon developing around the nuclear Iran vs Israel inevitability, which will kill millions and will involve us.

Fixing Afghanistan may seem impossible now, but may look like an incredible bargain later. This is the kind of thing a useful U.N. would make happen, if it was not a club of despots and babbling fools.

Fixing Afghanistan may seem impossible now, but may look like an incredible bargain later.

Really and truly fixing Afghanistan is going to require remaking the society. The American public doesn't have the patience for such an effort, and it requires a certain amount of hubris to assume it's something we have the right to do based on the events of 2001. Although Al Queda was basing its operations out of Afghanistan, the actual terrorists were from other countries.

In retrospect we should have bombed the place flat, left the Taliban in power, and told them "we'll come and bomb the place flat again if we're attacked again by a group you're hosting." To work, though, the strategy would have required real terrorism - the WW II-style mass killing of thousands of civilians. I don't think we have the stomach for that sort of thing anymore.

Bush did the only thing he could have done there giving the political constraints, and in the end it will almost certainly fail.

I think the most appropriate way to honor the memory of Mr. Nobel today was the moon bombing.

There was no TNT or any other explosive in the misnamed “bombing”; it was a pure impact, something that has happened a dozen or more times before with spacecraft, and many millions of times before with other bodies.

OSLO (AP) -- The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.

The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee - four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

"Some people say - and I understand it - 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."

Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.

Jeremy, however, is rarely accused of or caught in thought crime. Childish name calling and simplistic two-letter word sprees like ME ME ME,ME,ME and HA HA HA,HA,HA seem to be about as deep as his expressive capabilities go.

"I think the most appropriate way to honor the memory of Mr. Nobel today was the moon bombing."

This made me laugh.

"There was no TNT or any other explosive in the misnamed “bombing”; it was a pure impact, something that has happened a dozen or more times before with spacecraft, and many millions of times before with other bodies."

You're as much a stick-in-the-mud as my husband when I told him the "bomb the moon" joke. Okay, fine. It wasn't a *bomb* it was a kinetic impact. But I thought that the impact, unlike most others, was intended to be an *impact* that would spew debris and leave a crater, rather than meant as a method of *landing*.

I could be wrong... maybe I'm just remembering plans to "bomb" Mars or something.

In any case this is taking away my fun sort of like when I was a kid and first found out that canon balls don't explode. Is it really necessary? So a canon ball is just a kinetic impact, whoop-de-do. It still "blasts" a pretty big hole in what it hits.

Okay, fine. It wasn't a bomb it was a kinetic impact. But I thought that the impact, unlike most others, was intended to be an impact that would spew debris and leave a crater, rather than meant as a method of landing.

Oh, it was designed to “spew debris and leave a [small] crater” — principally the former, but it would also accomplish the latter (excavating a crater some 20 meters in diameter, and 3 meters deep).

Mind you, I thought the comment you quoted was funny too — but after the belly laugh, given how much hysteria this so-called “bombing” has engendered (elsewhere), I thought it best to clarify the situation.

You see, some folks (bloggers) have been asserting that the impact would raise an explosion equal to a small atomic bomb (2 kilotons of TNT, or about 10% the size of the Nagasaki bombing in World War II), or more than a thousand times the actual energy released by the impact of around 1.5 tons of TNT. Then, too, a news commentator declared that the Centaur upper stage that slammed into the Moon was packed with TNT — wrong. It was also stated that the excavated crater would be up to 8 kilometers deep, rather than the approximate 3 meters of reality.

These severe misstatements of fact, combined with a general atmosphere of hysteria (“NASA's going to blow up the Moon!”), in my view deserved debunking and a general calming down.

On the other hand, given the other, childhood disillusionment you mentioned, you might appreciate learning now that, in fact, you weren't altogether wrong earlier in that case, as in the artillery of earlier centuries, though solid cannonballs of course did not explode (doing their damage via pure kinetic impact, just as in the LCROSS lunar collision), there was also a variety of other ammunition in use — including “case” (or “canister”) shot, acting rather like a huge shotgun, thereby severely decimating infantry and ship's personnel — together with actual explosive shells (often fired from mortars) designed to detonate (usually via a timed fuse) near their intended target, blowing it up along with its defenders.

"These severe misstatements of fact, combined with a general atmosphere of hysteria (“NASA's going to blow up the Moon!”), in my view deserved debunking and a general calming down."

No worries. I suppose those of us who thought it was rather funny and played it up didn't help much.

And I already knew that cannons (or something near enough) were adapted to firing explosive shells. I might *even* have half a notion on how the fuses worked on account of reading far too much David Weber. ;-)

I don't think it matters that Reagan never won the Nobel Prize. Nobody remembers who won the Nobel Peace Prize and who didn't, largely because it has virtually never gone to anyone who produced lasting peace.

What people remember is the names of those who did produce lasting peace. People like, well... Ronald Reagan. :)

My final thought on this farce is that George W Bush, like the fighter that takes a fall, is the one controlling the match. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Barack Obama, even Mohamed ElBaradei, all owe their prize to George. I hope someone remembers to thank him.

Reagan's achievement was that of the winning pitcher of the All-Star Game: he was the President of record when the other side gave up.

Even Arpad Bella had more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than Reagan.

I shan't really consider whether Reagan (or whoever) was most responsible for the fall of the Soviet empire. I believe Reagan contributed substantially to that consequence, but to a considerable degree it was accidental — nor was the Soviet fall inevitable, contrary to modern myth.

In my view, though, Reagan didn't really foresee that end result or deliberately strategically work towards it.

However, it's indisputable that Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dreamed of a world without nuclear weapons, and by partnering with Soviet premier Gorbachev to end the insane, MAD standoff of the Cold War, as well as working with him to reduce nuclear stockpiles on both sides by many thousands of warheads, Reagan accomplished far more than anybody else possibly could in enormously reducing the risk of such an unmitigated catastrophe for the world occurring.

Yet, because Reagan was a “right wing Republican conservative Yahoo” as these arrogantly believing in their own inherent self-righteousness leftists and liberals would have it, the chance of him ever receiving the Nobel Peace Prize was utterly nil. Only Gorbachev could ever have (and did, in 1990) received the prize, given the left-wing politics continually swirling round the circle of prize awarders in Norway.

One ought to give the man credit where it's due, inclusive of the foresight that he did manifest — which incorporated the dream of seeing the world free of nuclear weapons together with ending the frighteningly dangerous nuclear brinksmanship of the Cold War. The former Reagan contributed to; the latter he (together with Gorbachev) accomplished.

Jeremy: Well, start with the Americans who voted for Obama over Johnny and the Princess...being at "peace" with the belief that we have someone who knows what the fuck he's doing running the country, and appears to have regular American's concerns in mind.

The Republicans had the majority in Congress for 12 of the last 14 years and the White House for 8...what have THYE done for us lately?

SCI: While having you loons satiated for a while is pleasant (we can only hear so many insipid chants before we commit violence), it doesn't do much for world peace.

As for the GOP has done for you --- not spend north of $3T in 3 years, as the Dems in Congress have.

GOP petroleum and missionary interests have always supported Islamofascism: Nixon got the Saudis to support Black Muslims to keep Jews from "controlling" civil rights, GOP made Ghandi dicatorship, GOP helps Pakistan and Turkey. THis is why Jerws and Hindus support Democrats, not because we are liberals.